Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The KKK is domestic terrorist organization. Their only goal is white supremacy.*
*That's not true.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If they support a candidate, it is because he advances their goal of white supremacy. That is why their support is toxic.
That's also not true.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Atheists, Christians, and Satanists can all support church-state separation, while having wildly divergent views about other issues and each other, because while their association may be controversial to one another and others, their shared goal is not. When a cause is pro-social, people can put their differences aside, and unite around a common good.That is why church-state separation is supported by a diverse coalition, and white supremacy stands alone.
It depends on the topic but the KKK and the Church of Satan may align on some positions. You gotta...not be dishonest and strawman your enemies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Goals
"Joseph Simmons published the pamphlet ABC of the Invisible Empire in Atlanta in 1917; in it, he identified the Klan's goals as "to shield the sanctity of the home and the chastity of womanhood; to maintain white supremacy; to teach and faithfully inculcate a high spiritual philosophy through an exalted ritualism; and by a practical devotedness to conserve, protect and maintain the distinctive institutions, rights, privileges, principles and ideals of a pure Americanism".[119] Such moral-sounding purpose underlay its appeal as a fraternal organization, recruiting members with a promise of aid for settling into the new urban societies of rapidly growing cities such as Dallas and Detroit.[120] During the 1930s, particularly after James A. Colescott of Indiana took over as imperial wizard, opposition to Communism became another primary aim of the Klan.[34]"
Originally posted by Surtur
When I was a kid I saw that Richie Rich movie with Macaulay Culkin in the 90s. I still have the VHS somewhere.And I probably saw some reruns of the cartoon on CN.
Interesting fact: that VHS tape may be so degraded that you will have clear video and audio quality loss.
About 15 years is the supposed shelf life.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There was no reply, because it is a distinction without a difference. It does not change the previous response, so you can just refer to that one.
There is a huge difference between support of the core cause (the specific reason/cause why the organization was created in the first place) and a “common cause” (aka. a shared common ground) that is shared by multiple organizations. 😐
Originally posted by Nibedicus
There is a huge difference between support of the core cause (the specific reason/cause why the organization was created in the first place) and a “common cause” (aka. a shared common ground) that is shared by multiple organizations. 😐
No, there really is not. Freedom From Religion Foundation, for example, is organized to enforce church-state separation. That is their core case, and it is a cause that American Atheists have in common with them. If FFRF held a rally in support of that cause, members of AA may be in attendance. But at its core, AA wants to eliminate the influence of religion in society, whereas FFRF is a coalition of non-believers and members of various faith traditions who do not seek to eliminate religion from public life. That puts them at cross-purposes outside of the issue of church-state separation, which is a core issue for FFRF and a common one for AA. The distinction makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, there really is not. Freedom From Religion Foundation, for example, is organized to enforce church-state separation. That is their core case, and it is a cause that American Atheists have in common with them. If FFRF held a rally in support of that cause, members of AA may be in attendance. But at its core, AA wants to eliminate the influence of religion in society, whereas FFRF is a coalition of non-believers and members of various faith traditions who do not seek to eliminate religion from public life. That puts them at cross-purposes outside of the issue of church-state separation, which is a core issue for FFRF and a common one for AA. The distinction makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Firstly, we are talking about an individual and his support of an organization. Not oranizations’ support (or lack thereof) of each other.
Secondly, from where I am standing, if an athiest goes to a FFRF rally advocating for sepration of Church and State, then he is very much supporting FFRF by his actions.
Thirdly, as I’ve already said, being critical (or disagreeing with) several of an organization’s principles does not make your act of support suddenly go away. You still supported the organization by your actions if we go by the dictionary definition of the word “support”. One can disagree with a lot of what Trump does, but if you vote for him, wouldn’t you be a Trump supporter?
Lastly, the distinction is huge. There are several causes that can intersect if you generalize them enough. You can be one who supports the preservation of Lions in Africa or you can be one who wants to save the whales, if you generalize it to “protect animals” then you can make it seem like the causes are the same. And one can support lions while not supporting whales (a japanese whaler that likes lions for example).
A core cause is very specific to an organization and support of such is a very specific choice of an individual to do so.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Interesting fact: that VHS tape may be so degraded that you will have clear video and audio quality loss.About 15 years is the supposed shelf life.
That is interesting, cuz a lot of my VHS tapes lasted well beyond that with no issues.
My copy of Twister from 1997 worked fine as recently as 2017 lol
Originally posted by SurturYeah, DDM seems wrong about this, although I am pretty sure he is right that this is the supposed shelf life for them. It's like Flash drives are only supposed to last 15 years. I have some early ones that are fine and older than that.
That is interesting, cuz a lot of my VHS tapes lasted well beyond that with no issues.My copy of Twister from 1997 worked fine as recently as 2017 lol
Originally posted by Surtur
That is interesting, cuz a lot of my VHS tapes lasted well beyond that with no issues.My copy of Twister from 1997 worked fine as recently as 2017 lol
I saw it as soon as 7 years for highly heavily used cassettes.
If you use highly quality VHS cassettes, properly store them, used very high quality recording when making them (not all VCRs are created equal), you could get a long lasting VHS cassette. They have shelf-life listed as 30 years. But the magnetic tape simply loses it's magnetization over time.
Keep them away from magnets and you should get the full 30 years out of them.
I would say, though, you may not see the quality loss. You may have to compare it to a brand new VHS recording from the same master image to tell how far it is already degraded.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Firstly, we are talking about an individual and his support of an organization. Not oranizations’ support (or lack thereof) of each other.
No, we are talking about entities, and whether it follows from one sharing a cause with the other that it necessarily supports the other. The answer is no, it does not. That is true whether those entities are individuals or organizations.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Secondly, from where I am standing, if an athiest goes to a FFRF rally advocating for sepration of Church and State, then he is very much supporting FFRF by his actions.
And you are wrong. If A supports B, and C supports B, it does not follow from this that A supports C. Do you even logic, bro?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Thirdly, as I’ve already said, being critical (or disagreeing with) several of an organization’s principles does not make your act of support suddenly go away. You still supported the organization by your actions if we go by the dictionary definition of the word “support”. One can disagree with a lot of what Trump does, but if you vote for him, wouldn’t you be a Trump supporter?
And in this instance, the act of support is for the shared cause, not the organization. Attending a rally is a show of support for a cause, not an endorsement of the organization holding the rally.
Every year, Catholic and Evangelical organizations join together for the March for Life, to show their support for the shared cause of ending abortion. It does not follow from this that Evangelicals support the Catholic Church, which organizes it. Evangelicals do not even consider Catholics to be Christians, but they can march with them to protest abortion. Jesus Christ, you are either playing dumb here or it is not an act.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lastly, the distinction is huge. There are several causes that can intersect if you generalize them enough. You can be one who supports the preservation of Lions in Africa or you can be one who wants to save the whales, if you generalize it to “protect animals” then you can make it seem like the causes are the same. And one can support lions while not supporting whales (a japanese whaler that likes lions for example).A core cause is very specific to an organization and support of such is a very specific choice of an individual to do so.
It is not relevant in this case, for the reasons I already stated. If Freedom From Religion Foundation is holding a rally to protest the placement of a religious monument on government property, the people of all backgrounds who attend the rally for their own motivations are not all signing-on to FFRF's mission statement by being there. They, like FFRF, oppose the monument. That is it. There is no endorsement of FFRF there.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
1) No, we are talking about entities, and whether it follows from one sharing a cause with the other that it necessarily supports the other. The answer is no, it does not. That is true whether those entities are individuals or organizations.2) And you are wrong. If A supports B, and C supports B, it does not follow from this that A supports C. Do you even logic, bro?
3) And in this instance, the act of support is for the shared cause, not the organization. Attending a rally is a show of support for a cause, not an endorsement of the organization holding the rally.
4) Every year, Catholic and Evangelical organizations join together for the March for Life, to show their support for the shared cause of ending abortion. It does not follow from this that Evangelicals support the Catholic Church, which organizes it. Evangelicals do not even consider Catholics to be Christians, but they can march with them to protest abortion. Jesus Christ, you are either playing dumb here or it is not an act.
5) It is not relevant in this case, for the reasons I already stated.
6) If Freedom From Religion Foundation is holding a rally to protest the placement of a religious monument on government property, the people of all backgrounds who attend the rally for their own motivations are not all signing-on to FFRF's mission statement by being there. They, like FFRF, oppose the monument. That is it. There is no endorsement of FFRF there.
1) No, we are talking about an individual, not an organizaiton. You jumped into the discussion Newjack and I was having and we were definetly talking about an individual, you do not get to change the criteria/elements of our discussion. That would be a strawman.
2) Oganizations are as much their core ideal/purpose as much as they are about their body of membership (with all its internal guidelines/mission and membership requirements).
Ppl’s support of an organization can be for either (or both) A (the ppl composing it) or B (the core cause that it was created to achieve/promote). I thought that was the point behind groups like Antifa/BLM? They need not support both and they need not support either in its entirety (you can disagree with some or even most of what Trump does or stands for and still support him and you did so with your actions if you voted for him).
Thus if X=A or B then and Y supports A then Y supports X. Which is my point.
3) He was specific on why he went to the rally. It was because of: a) He was upset over the death of Floyd (a black man killed by police) b) he was upset over police violence. And thus he specifically joined a BLM protest to express his support. Protesting against the deaths of black men killed by police is the actual core cause on why ppl support BLM. I doubt that good chunk of ppl marching for BLM are even aware of the organization’s other missions beyond that.
4) While endorsement IS an act of support (a strong one at that), it is not the only means a person can show support. An organization is as much its core causes/ideals as it is its body/membership. And a lot of ppl support organizations for its causes while being completely oblivious to what its membership/body is about. And a lot of ppl show their support via their actions/participation.
5) It is absolutely relevant and you simply handwaving it does not mean you refuted it.
6) You are confusing all “support” (a general act) for “endorsement” (a specific act of support).
This is the problem with your entire argument you make general actions into specific ones and specific causes into general ones in order to look for inconsistencies. Doesn’t work that way.